Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have a consciousness and it is real, interactive with reality and identifiable. Absolutely everything in our reality that is real, interactive and identifiable HAS to be comprised of some form of energy/mass. Our consciousness is produced by our brain in a form analogous to how fire is produced from combustibles (but using different processes). This leaves no place within the brain for the resultant composite to reside because it is not matter.
Huh? Energy isn't some magical force that flows through us and gives us our Jedi powers. It is simply a property of matter, like temperature or length. So there's no problem thinking that a system can store energy of various forms. They do it all the time - lift up a weight and it is storing potential energy. Throw a baseball an it has kinetic energy. No magic needed.
If physics worked like you thought it did, batteries couldn't work because there would be no place for the non-matter energy to be stored. I'll pick reality over your ideas in this (and every other) case.
It probably is possible for a person to have God(swt) blindness. But it may be closer to Not seeing what they expect God(swt) to look like.
Not seeing God(swt) is similar, one sees the effects of God(swt) with your eyes, you have to look at the results. Sort of like no one has ever seen electricity. We can only see the results. An electric spark or lightening are not electricity they are the effects of it.
One does not "see" God(swt) directly, they see the effects and From there arrive at a conclusion and eventually realize all things are an effect of God(swt).
Sort of like when you put a shirt on, You don't see the person who designed it, but eventually you might come to the conclusion somebody did.
Hear say Wood, God is hear say. If "you" and your experiences are your scientific finding then explain why you differ so much from Mystic as a scientific finding for God. When you can explain the differing results I might listen to you. Otherwise it's just guessing a theory. Scientist guess at theories all the time, the difference is they cannot publish those findings unless the results prove the same repeatedly, can be proven over and over again by anyone who tests the theory. Religion and spiritual beliefs fail. The results of God differ from person to person. Your fantasy of God differs from Mystics fantasy. You either have different Gods or you do not yet have concrete results. They also differ in regards to demographics which one can expect with hear say.
If you put on a shirt you might wonder who designed it, as you do with the earth and it's reason for creation. We all wonder on this, not just Theists. Eventually you can prove who designed it, and have your answer but it certainly wont match up with your imagined theory, or the hear say you've followed from someone else. You might end up finding it wasn't designed at all. The only purpose of your imagination is to encourage you to find the real answer. That's what science does.
Religion does the opposite and halts the desire to find the real answer because you "think" you know it already. It stunts scientific growth. It also allows for arguable results among believers, which brings constant controversy. You argue amongst yourselves over hear say. It's useless. You haven't found the answer yet. You've stunted the last leg of the experiment because you are stuck in differing theories.
Atheists simply say they've found a shirt, and wear it purposefully to shield themselves from the elements. When asked who they think designed it they say, I don't know. They might offer a boring statement like, maybe it wasn't designed and someone made it to protect themselves from the sun, or the cold? But, I don't know, I haven't found the origin yet. Therefore I have no hear say to spread, as I don't know who or if someone designed the shirt. This may disappoint those who've fantasized who the original designer was and what he had in mind when designing the shirt but none the less is the truth of the matter. Nobody knows yet, even those who truly believe they do. Someone just made up the purpose of the designer, and others believed the rumors. This happens to humans all the time, doesn't make it true.
Until then each person can make up who they think designed it all they want, again, doesn't make it true, just makes it a thought. I have no problem with the thought until it's proclaimed to be the truth. Religion and spiritual followers claim it's the truth.
The shirt may not have been designed at all, it may have just been constructed by for the purpose of protection from the elements. I understand finding this out would be a let down to those who fantasized about a "designer" for years before they found out there was none. It just served a natural purpose of protection from the weather. Nothing fancy in mind. The end results won't bother me, even if God appears in front of me. I can simply answer for my thoughts honestly, I made nothing up, I can honestly say I didn't know and made no assumptions. Can you????
Pretty colors, poppy! I understand that you want to compare all those things with questionable reality to reality itself . . . which is NOT questionable. It won't work. There is no question whatsoever that reality exists and that is God . . . since it is responsible for us and everything else that exists. Hard to be more Godly than that. So the issue is not comparing things that have questionable existence with God . . . because God IS reality and that definitely exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Horse Pucky!
I didn't mean to upset you, NoCapo.
Quote:
There is a questions, in fact you have never made a cohererent argument as to why this is the case, merely semantic quibblings that rely on you using the word "God" as a meaningless label. You have been called on this countless times, and given the opportunity to use the feedback to strengthen your argument, and yet we are back to this.
Reality is what exists and to declare it a God you need to explain what the minimum requirements are to be a God and how they apply.
I respect you more than my usual adversaries, NoCapo . . . but you are not reading as carefully as you should. The bold in my post IS the minimum requirement for God, IMO.
Quote:
A good starting point would be to assume two otherwise identical realities, one divine, one not. What would be the difference? How would you know?
That would be consciousness. I realize that my adversaries see a disparate reality comprised of many separate things including each of us . . . but I do not. I see a singular reality encompassing everything as one. My experiences confirm this TO ME. When any aspect of reality exhibits consciousness . . . it is conscious.YMMV.
Quote:
The fact that all you have is assertion. You strip the word of any meaning becasue that is a belief about God) then assign it to reality, and proceed to fill in the definition arbitrarily. It is a fundamentally dishonest and deceptive argument. Before you go and get your paranoid fantasies in a twist, I am not a sock puppet, I am not insulting you, but I am criticizing your method of "explaining" yourself.
Now that being said, this thread is about consciousness fields, not God, so if you would like to have this discussion again, we can start another thread, I will be happy to point out where you are skipping steps or glossing over logical difficulties. The fact that you still throw out the same tired assertions without bothering to examine your own arguments tells me that it is beyond reson or logic for you, this is a point of dogma, and any attempt to question is blasphemey against the prophet Mystic, the one true knower of God...
Suffice to say, this has not been demonstrated. There is a question, a great many in fact. Reality = God is certainly not a demonstrable fact.
Carry on with your proselytizing..
-NoCapo
It is not paranoia when they ARE out to get you. I assure you I am not being deceptive or dishonest. I had to make sense of what did not make any sense whatever to my previously atheistic and materialistic mind. It was a long and arduous road to find a rationale that satisfied me. My views are the result of those efforts. I appreciate your efforts to help me see in alternate ways . . . but I must admit at this stage the consistency of my experiences over the years trumps my intellect in this matter. I suppose in some way my critics are right . . . I have become so immersed in my experience of God that I no longer doubt sufficiently to question it anymore.
But none of that erases the science that led me here or my hypotheses extrapolated from it. My most consistent stalkers repeatedly ignore the foundational science as if it is non-existent because my conclusions are of necessity extrapolations and hypotheses only. They continually and relentlessly use the taunts "made-up" and "not one shred of evidence" as if there is no scientific foundation or rationale for them whatsoever. I have zero respect for them and their antics. I am not the prophet Mystic, NoCapo . . . and I am not proselytizing. I am just a totally committed believer at this point.
If one applies, then they all do. There results aren't consistent. I'll use electricity as the example given by Wood. You can't see an electrical current, because Atoms are small but, you can use electricity consistently. You get expected results. (you can actually taste electricity) just a fun bit of knowledge. Nobody claims to know it by sight, but we all use it consistently and can predict it's usefulness. Using electricity for light for example.
Religious beliefs are not consistent. God can be proven when God becomes consistent. I've yet to see it.
Hear say Wood, God is hear say. If "you" and your experiences are your scientific finding then explain why you differ so much from Mystic as a scientific finding for God. When you can explain the differing results I might listen to you. Otherwise it's just guessing a theory.
Ascertaining the properties of God is like falling in love with someone from the internet before actually meeting him/her in real life.
The relationship hinges almost entirely upon text and fantasy.
My experiences confirm this TO ME. When any aspect of reality exhibits consciousness
Then you offer nothing but word games. Just because some parts of reality - that is to say us - are concious - this does not mean all of reality is conscious. You were corrected on this before. It is called the "composition fallacy".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
But none of that erases the science that led me here or my hypotheses extrapolated from it. My most consistent stalkers repeatedly ignore the foundational science as if it is non-existent because my conclusions are of necessity extrapolations and hypotheses only.
As I said in an earlier post - we can not ignore what is not there. You do not present the science and then claim people are ignorinng it. And yet you assure NoCapo you are not being deceptive or dishonest or proselytizing.
What you do present is science sounding words - but you never present any science. Such as when you declare your evidence - not found yet - will be found when we measure "dark matter". There you throw in the science phrase "dark matter" but in no way does using that phrase evidence your claims.
You claim that reality itself is conscious - by all means show the science that evidences this claim.
Hear say Wood, God is hear say. If "you" and your experiences are your scientific finding then explain why you differ so much from Mystic as a scientific finding for God. When you can explain the differing results I might listen to you. Otherwise it's just guessing a theory. Scientist guess at theories all the time, the difference is they cannot publish those findings unless the results prove the same repeatedly, can be proven over and over again by anyone who tests the theory. Religion and spiritual beliefs fail. The results of God differ from person to person. Your fantasy of God differs from Mystics fantasy. You either have different Gods or you do not yet have concrete results. They also differ in regards to demographics which one can expect with hear say.
If you put on a shirt you might wonder who designed it, as you do with the earth and it's reason for creation. We all wonder on this, not just Theists. Eventually you can prove who designed it, and have your answer but it certainly wont match up with your imagined theory, or the hear say you've followed from someone else. You might end up finding it wasn't designed at all. The only purpose of your imagination is to encourage you to find the real answer. That's what science does.
Religion does the opposite and halts the desire to find the real answer because you "think" you know it already. It stunts scientific growth. It also allows for arguable results among believers, which brings constant controversy. You argue amongst yourselves over hear say. It's useless. You haven't found the answer yet. You've stunted the last leg of the experiment because you are stuck in differing theories.
Atheists simply say they've found a shirt, and wear it purposefully to shield themselves from the elements. When asked who they think designed it they say, I don't know. They might offer a boring statement like, maybe it wasn't designed and someone made it to protect themselves from the sun, or the cold? But, I don't know, I haven't found the origin yet. Therefore I have no hear say to spread, as I don't know who or if someone designed the shirt. This may disappoint those who've fantasized who the original designer was and what he had in mind when designing the shirt but none the less is the truth of the matter. Nobody knows yet, even those who truly believe they do. Someone just made up the purpose of the designer, and others believed the rumors. This happens to humans all the time, doesn't make it true.
Until then each person can make up who they think designed it all they want, again, doesn't make it true, just makes it a thought. I have no problem with the thought until it's proclaimed to be the truth. Religion and spiritual followers claim it's the truth.
The shirt may not have been designed at all, it may have just been constructed by for the purpose of protection from the elements. I understand finding this out would be a let down to those who fantasized about a "designer" for years before they found out there was none. It just served a natural purpose of protection from the weather. Nothing fancy in mind. The end results won't bother me, even if God appears in front of me. I can simply answer for my thoughts honestly, I made nothing up, I can honestly say I didn't know and made no assumptions. Can you????
While Mystic and I do often disagree about things, we both try to see the other's view. I think either of us try to build from differences, rather than stumble over them.
I am not much of a believer that truth can be absolutely proven. Except for in mathematics. We simply do not know everything and all forms of observation and measurement carry some degree of assumptions.
When dealing with the non-physical realm we have no physical means of direct measurement and observation.
I have no issues in thinking that God(swt) could be described in human terms as Intelligent, eternal Energy. I don't think we have the knowledge for an exact understanding.
I am always open to all views. I hope I am not stagnate and have reached the point I can't learn from others.
Yes, much of what I believe about God(swt) is based upon assumptions and my own opinions about what I observe. I do not expect them to be accepted as "Proof" by anyone simply take them as what they are, the opinions of another person.
Each person has to find their own reasons to believe.
Ascertaining the properties of God is like falling in love with someone from the internet before actually meeting him/her in real life.
The relationship hinges almost entirely upon text and fantasy.
Absent the personal experiences . . . this is not a bad description . . . except for the fantasy part.
Ascertaining the properties of God is like falling in love with someone from the internet before actually meeting him/her in real life.
The relationship hinges almost entirely upon text and fantasy.
Yes it is very similar. That does not mean it is wrong.
Being Muslim I did not meet my wife in person until after we were married. We did get to know each other quite well as we exchanged our Nikkah (Marriage Contract) back and forth and each revising what we promised and expected. After we came into agreement we each signed our copy in front of 4 witnesses then sent it to the other to be signed again in front of 4 witnesses. At that point we were married under Islam. 20 days later we met each other and have now been together for 6 years. I was in Texas she was in South Dakota. After I came up North we moved to ND
Assumptions and opinions can suffice as sufficient proof for may things. Without seeing each other and evaluating what we heard from others we knew we wanted to spend our remaining years together.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand that you want to compare all those things with questionable reality to reality itself . . . which is NOT questionable. It won't work. There is no question whatsoever that reality exists and that is God . . . since it is responsible for us and everything else that exists. Hard to be more Godly than that. So the issue is not comparing things that have questionable existence with God . . . because God IS reality and that definitely exists.
) then assign it to reality, and proceed to fill in the definition arbitrarily. It is a fundamentally dishonest and deceptive argument. Before you go and get your paranoid fantasies in a twist, I am not a sock puppet, I am not insulting you, but I am criticizing your method of "explaining" yourself. 
